May 4, 2012

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the front-runner, has focused his campaigns on jobs, education, the environment and "making communities safer." One of Mr. Barrett's ads singles out "Walker's War on Women," with nary a mention of collective bargaining. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk is heavily supported by union groups, but even her issues list makes only passing reference to collective bargaining.

The Governor's office has estimated that altogether the reforms have saved Badger State taxpayers more than $1 billion, including $65 million in changes in health-care plans, and some $543 million in local savings documented by media reports. According to the Wisconsin-based MacIver Institute, Mayor Barrett's city of Milwaukee saved $19 million on health-care costs as a direct result of Mr. Walker's reforms. Awkward turtle.

All of this is making an impression on Wisconsin voters. According to a Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday, only 12% of Wisconsin voters say "restoring collective bargaining rights" is their priority, which explains the Democratic decision to fight on other issues.

One of Barrett's other issues is civility. We need to restore civility in Wisconsin... because, you know the way Scott Walker caused everyone to become so uncouth.

Well, its even more simple than that. The gov't union employees want all of their money restored. Its hard to convince enough real-work people to vote to recall a governor based on "so gov't employees can get more money". So they come up with a false cause.

I would at least be someone impressed if the Democrats would lay out a detailed plan on what they are going to go to attract private investment and employment in the state.

$15.7 trillion and counting. That is someone's explicit or implicit debt. Presumably reflecting a promise to compensate others for their provision of products and services. If we want them, then we must provide compensation. The issue we should be discussing is who will pay for it? There is no one who will work for "free", and it seems everyone wants a beachfront property in Hawaii.

Anyway, with annually over 10% of the economy supported by the accumulation of debt, this position is unsustainable.

It's interesting that in Ohio some similar reforms were overturned in a referendum by a considerable margin. What is the difference between the two states (or the reforms) that cause such a difference?

Sen. Glen Grothman was on talk radio in Milwaukee today and said that Walker was in "serious trouble". I just about hurled.If Walker loses and we have 3 years of Democrat rule, and voters wise up again and put another Republican in Madison, will there be another recall??? Will it ever end???

Zero:"...and as such, we in order to get the American people back to work, in timely OH MY GOD! WHAT IS THAT!?"points towards the back of the room "...so you can clearly see that it was all the previous administrations fault."

It says that if the wife (I.e., the Madison Liberals)is upset it does not matter what actually happened. ALL that matters is how she feels about it.

Barrett wants to seduce and marry the Madison liberals and he pledges to keep them feeling good nat any costs.

Walker just wants good divorce settlement negotiated and could care less how offended the Madison Liberals feel...and if they keep it up he will send David Prosser to choke them with more legal opinions.

If the Democrats aren't going to make the election about restoring full bargaining rights, mandatory dues and the rest of it, then what the heck is it about?? Without those issues, it's merely a do-over of '10. And a very expensive do-over at that. Wisconsin voters ought to kick their asses back to stone age.

The Dems are about restoring full bargaining rights. Not so much about the extra contributions. The unions already bargained extra contributions before Act 10. But before they could go into effect, Walker had the Dept of Admin nullify all the contracts. Act 10 added the union-busting provisions.

Of course, that doesn't include the Milwaukee police and firefighters, who endorsed Walker. They got a pass on everything, in Act 10. So did the State Patrol, but their union refused to endorse Walker this time around.

Don't be disingenuous. You know this has nothing to do with "bargaining rights", and everything to do with cutting off the illegal flow of union dues to democrat coffers. And yes illegal, the dues are not given to the unions voluntarily, so that is theft. period, dot, end of sentence.

And when the money goes to Dems who get elected, the Dems bargain in good faith against the unions. Sure they do.

The unions, and the Dems are scared pissless that they won't get their easy money anymore. Why you, someone who has to pay for their shenanigans, is defending them makes it look like you have some skin in that game.

So come clean Leslyn...which are you, union, or Dem?

I won't think less of you. In fact, I would respect you. Most Dems are too chicken to admit they have a monetary interest for fleecing tax payers.

1. I am both union and Dem. What's not to admit?2. Related to unions, it has everything to do with bargaining rights. And don't spout "theft" at me. A closed shop is not a surprise. Neither are taxes.3. Personally, I work in an open shop. I wish it were a closed shop so that everyone would bear a share of what it costs for their union protection and rights. 4. Unknown, your teacher examples are bad for your point. Such allegations get a teacher removed from students. What follows for public employees is due process. Look up the law.5. "Slavemaster." Did NOT hear it before now, and I find it suspect. But also, if I spent my time railing against every possible *word* that might be objectionable in these posts I'd have no time to sleep at night. I'm not a word deconstructionist. It might be a popular hobby around here, but it's not mine.

BTW, good morning to you. I hope it is a lovely Saturday morning wherever you are.

1. I am both union and Dem. What's not to admit?2. Related to unions, it has everything to do with bargaining rights. And don't spout "theft" at me. A closed shop is not a surprise. Neither are taxes.3. Personally, I work in an open shop. I wish it were a closed shop so that everyone would bear a share of what it costs for their union protection and rights. 4. Unknown, your teacher examples are bad for your point. Such allegations get a teacher removed from students. What follows for public employees is due process. Look up the law.5. "Slavemaster." Did NOT hear it before now, and I find it suspect. But also, if I spent my time railing against every possible *word* that might be objectionable in these posts I'd have no time to sleep at night. I'm not a word deconstructionist. It might be a popular hobby around here, but it's not mine.

BTW, good morning to you. I hope it is a lovely Saturday morning wherever you are.

les, this has nothing to do with bargaining rights. This has everything to do with money and the ability of unions leaders to extort it from employers. Hate to tell you this but your unions bosses don't give a shit about you. If their salaries were ever threatened, they'd toss you overboard in a heartbeat. When given the choice between retaining employes and increasing salary, while decreasing work, the vast majority of unions will take the former without hesitation.